I hate to be critical, but what we see here is the easy part. The hard part is getting the characters right. And we don't see any of that, here.

Those vague tiny featureless renders of Kirk, Spock, and some red shirt dwarfed by the Big Alien Things don't count.

Furthermore, the unrealistic proportions of the characters that we can discern don't impress me at all; quite the opposite, actually. I can only hope that the character drawings here are thumbnail placeholders in lieu of actual character drawings to be inserted once it's figured out exactly how to draw them (e.g., regard a faceless Spock).

Unfortunately, in Green Lantern, the character style is to render people with exaggerated proportions, and these sketches seem to suggest that the treatment might go in that direction, too. That sort of character style works in GL, but I have grave doubts about it working in Star Trek.

I really love what I'm seeing. The second space piece, with all the planets, really gives me a Duck Dodgers (the newer show from a few years back) vibe, which is great.

The lack of realistic proportions doesn't bother me, because I'm used to that sort of thing from years of watching cartoons and anime. As long as the final designs weren't given Tron Uprising proportions, people would get over it.

I hate to be critical, but what we see here is the easy part. The hard part is getting the characters right. And we don't see any of that, here.

Those vague tiny featureless renders of Kirk, Spock, and some red shirt dwarfed by the Big Alien Things don't count.

Furthermore, the unrealistic proportions of the characters that we can discern don't impress me at all; quite the opposite, actually. I can only hope that the character drawings here are thumbnail placeholders in lieu of actual character drawings to be inserted once it's figured out exactly how to draw them (e.g., regard a faceless Spock).

Unfortunately, in Green Lantern, the character style is to render people with exaggerated proportions, and these sketches seem to suggest that the treatment might go in that direction, too. That sort of character style works in GL, but I have grave doubts about it working in Star Trek.

Consequently, I'm unimpressed, and actually concerned.

Click to expand...

It's general concept art for an artists' personal enjoyment (albeit a professional one), relax.

Considering what it IS and not worrying about what it is not without the context of a series, I have to say the concept art is doing what TAS did not: utilize it's format to show just about anything without regard for the budget of live action. Limitations of the early 70s kept them from actually doing what they stated they wanted to do. Success.

... I have to say the concept art is doing what TAS did not: utilize it's format to show just about anything without regard for the budget of live action. Limitations of the early 70s kept them from actually doing what they stated they wanted to do. Success.

I'm sure planets and spaceships could be rendered beautifully. My main concern is how humanoid characters would be portrayed. The Clone Wars look takes some getting used to, but would a more cartoony, less realistic look be better?

I'm still hoping for live-action. Why not an animated series and live-action at the same time? They'd be on different channels and focus on different audiences, no need to worry about cannibalizing the audience.

Why not an animated series and live-action at the same time? They'd be on different channels and focus on different audiences, no need to worry about cannibalizing the audience.

Click to expand...

Money, probably. There's pretty much no way to get a really good looking Star Trek show out there without spending at least $1 million per episode (probably $2 million, if SGU was anything to go by) for live action. Greenscreening won't save any money, because you're shoving the costs of set building to the CGI guys, who have to build everything from scratch, then try to render it in photorealistic quality, which isn't cheap.

Animation is expensive too - there was a recent interview with the producer of Green Lantern: TAS where he pointed out that CGI costs a chunk of money, limiting what you can make. But you can stretch that budget a lot further because you're not making everything look as real as possible.

While it's really impossible to know without having something concrete to make the comparisons, I suspect I'd probably be happier with a Clone Wars style take on the characters than a Green Lantern style take.

In TCW and GL character animation, the human proportions are exaggerated. In GL, it's wildly exaggerated (probably too much; hence, my concerns). In TCW, it's significantly less exaggerated overall, but there's nevertheless still hyper-narrowing of facial features, hyper-broad chests (just less so than in GL), etc.

It's also definitely worth pointing out that TCW character style has been used successfully to adapt live action material, while the GL character style has been used—and arguably less successfully—to adapt comic book material.

Filmation, on the other hand, opted for (ETA: in the case of the males) perfectly proportioned, though still idealized and simplified, characters.

ETA: However, the females on TAS, particularly Uhura, were usually drawn with Barbie-esque proportions, including a long slender neck and oversized head. If I have any major complaint in the way that the characters were realized in TAS, it would be in that manner of depicting the women.

If I were the producers, I'd do test footage of as many different character styles as possible, preferably with the actual actors' voices. ETA: One way to accomplish that would be to render a few select scenes of the films in the various styles, assuming they would in fact use the film actors.